May be it’s the Draft Islamic Constitution, issued by al-Azhar University you’re talking about. But please read Umar Ibrahim Vadillo’s The Esoteric Deviation in Islam, and you surely will know where you are. Before then, here are some excerpts from the book.

Esotericism and constitutionalism

The constitutions have been an essential tool of esotericisation. Constitutions challenged the validity of the religious law, and provided the required political justification to the state. They redefined freedom in terms of political docility. Their new morals, like toleration, peace and security became subsidiary values to the categorical imperatives of the state and the development of capitalism. Constitutions became the essential tools of capitalism.

WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONALISM?

The constitution itself is just the result of the deliberation of a group of people on paper, which itself can be altered or amended from time to time as demanded. The constitution then rests on acquiescence, whether it is established by referendum or by tacit approval or even by force. The object of the constitution, was to limit the arbitrary action of the government, to guarantee rights of the governed, and to define the operation of the sovereign power.

The essence of constitutionalism is the affirmation that religion or religions do not have a law, and even if they have one, man-made laws are better than those originated by the prophet or prophets. Constitutions emerged against a background of customary and religious law and came to replace them. This is why a fundamental hostility to religion or rather organised traditional religion is implicit in constitutionalism. The whole process was summed up by Figgis in the phrase: ‘Political Liberty is the residuary legatee of ecclesiastical animosities.’ Constitutional supporters did of course present the constitution as a defence of religion, in the name of religious freedom. What it in fact protected was a religious diversity that guaranteed absolute validity to none. But if religion is not absolute it is not religion at all, but becomes at most a group of feelings and inclinations of thought with no practical relevance to the main aspects of political and economic life. And this is how constitutions transformed religions under their rule. (p.170-71)

The Muslims and the new esoteric order

The world that resulted from the tragic elimination of the Khalifate was a cluster of separated nations each with its own flag, constitution and central bank. None of these realities are acceptable in Islam. Every one of these constitutions, including the so-called Islamic constitutions, is an assault on Islam. Every bank open in a Muslim land is a reminder of the declaration of war that Allah has issued in Qur’an against the usurers. In this state of affairs a ‘reformed’ Islam has prevailed that has succeeded in keeping the status quo for almost a hundred years.

Every Muslim knows that usury is forbidden. So, like the christian reformers, some Muslim reformers with the help of well educated kafirs changed the definition of usury. They abandoned the traditional schools of jurisprudence, they invented a new school, and, partly based on pragmatism, they invented the unthinkable: the Islamic bank. Consequently, while criticising capitalism, they embraced it with a religious endorsement. All the new laws and methods of the ‘reformed Islam’ are in conflict with Islam. They are a deviation which presents itself as fundamentalism, but the only thing they are fundamentalist about is capitalism. They have done what no kafir dared to do: to change Islamic Law in order to accept the banks. This was possible because fundamentalism owes more to freemasonry than to Islamic Law: it was Rashid Reda, inspired by ‘Abduh who shaped reformist Islam, not Ibn Taymiyya. Despite his oversight on fundamental aspects of the Deen, Ibn Taymiyya was not a reformer, and he would never have allowed an Islamic bank or a Saudi state.

In the meantime the world of capitalism continues to evolve towards a world state. The preparations involve, as well as economic and political issues, religious issues. The reformers, who had already changed Islam to accept capitalism, seemed equally eager to change Islam further in order to redefine it alongside the tolerance, human rights and other principles of the new esoteric religion.

The ecumenical power of this esoteric religion has already managed to bring together some irreconcilable sects of Islam. Whether esotericist reformers or, to use an expression of Titus Burckhardt, ‘those who do not look beyond the horizons of exotericism’, there are many who have succumbed to the alluring power of the UN. Where else will you find exoteric so-called Salafis and esoteric so-called Sufis, who supposedly despise each other, fraternally coming together? That brotherhood which brings them together is not an Islamic Brotherhood but the ‘brotherhood of mankind’ advocated by freemasonry, the bahais and the UN. When it comes to capitalism and the UN, they are in conformity with each other. (p.63-4)

…Esotericism is present in our lives through the legal system. All constitutions have an esoteric origin, including the Islamic Constitution of Iran. If Iran followed Islamic Law they would not need a constitution. Only the state, the banks and their paper currency need a constitution. All the states that are part of the United Nations have accepted the rule of esotericism. Accepting the UN is an automatic renunciation of Islam. In effect, the equality of all religions proclaimed by human rights meant the practical abolition of all religions. We do not accept all the religions because we know that Islam is the only religion acceptable to Allah. Europe also tried for centuries to get rid of christianity. But that liberating anti-christian spirit of the Europeans which would have inevitably led them to Islam, as is happening today, was deviated into esotericism, a false doctrine of dualist foundations, that paralysed people with nihilistic values and a will deprived of wisdom. (p.147)

…The second stage of esotericism was the utilitarian phase in which Islamic Law was subject to a complete re-evaluation in terms of a social, political or economic pragmatism. Real Sufism is banished and a new Tasawwuf starts to emerge defined as esoteric Islam5 Madhhabs are gone and a new set of Islamic principles come into action. Islamic principles allow the acceptance of assimilation to kafir society: Islamic banks, Islamic states, Islamic stock exchanges, Islamic constitutions, and so on. While affirming that Allah is the most powerful, they admit that the kafir West (seen as evil) is in fact more practical, and they eagerly succumb to imitating its kufr which they had said they so much hated (e.g. the Islamic Republic of Iran).

The final stage is the assimilation stage. Perennialism is their new metaphysics. The brotherhood of mankind and the universality of religions are widely accepted as Islamic doctrines. Tasawwuf is esotericised and accepted6 and the Shari‘ah is esoterically softened and made ready to become Islamic human rights. It follows an implicit acceptance of the Declaration of Human Rights, and the world state as the new kafir messiah. Progressively everything that differentiated religions was defined as an exoteric domain (external, accidental and peripheral) while the esoteric domain (internal, essential and central) became that which brings them together. Capitalism demands uniformity and freedom for usury. Esotericisation provides both. Embracing all religions is their deceiving technique. Usury is esoterically reinterpreted. It first became reduced to ‘interest’ and then to a moral expression of ‘the evil of trading’. Usury is no longer an existential practice, but a moral principle. From dealing with the event we projected it into a field of ethics and morality, in which principles and rights dominate reality.

The utility of an act of pure worship has been devalued and discredited according to a practical understanding of utility. This behaviour resembles the behaviour of the agnostic. In this context it is important to note that the people of all the religions today follow more or less the same type of life. We all have banks, paper-money, pay under a more and more homogeneous tax system, with identity cards and a registration system. Muslims, christians and agnostics have to live essentially in the same way. The difference is reduced to their personal moral and sexual attitude, which creates a puritan/liberal dialectic, and also to which day of the week they decide to go to the temple. The morality is reduced to ‘I do what I can’. We propose a change in the mentality produced by the utilitarian enquiry of ‘what can we do?’ We can act if we just obey Allah.

Man’s actions cannot merely be valued by their utility. It would mean the triumph of technique over obedience to Allah. It would mean that the imperatives of the banking system are above those of obedience to Allah. This is what the deviated say: “Allah is the most powerful, but the bankers are more practical. We should follow the sunna of the bankers.” This is the irony of their dualism. They call the banks ‘shaytans’, and yet they hurry to islamise them (Islamic banks). It shows the helplessness of their vision and makes obvious their surrender. The banks are institutions forbidden by Allah and to accept them or try to incorporate them into our worship is to worship other-than-Allah. This is commonly referred to as being practical. They say “we are practical”, but they are only fooling themselves. This way of saying they are practical is the evidence of their helplessness which results in an inability to act according to Islam. One of the most common ideas in esoteric thinking is that ‘we cannot obey’ because there are other forces that do not allow us to act. Normally these forces are referred to as shaytan. So the shaytans — they say — do not allow them to act. The shaytans are all their political enemies. But these people do not realise that the only obstacle they have is themselves. The proof is that when they are finally given an opportunity to act they copy the shaytans whom they hate: Islamic banks. They think that what is halal is not possible, and this understanding blinds them. (p.17-19)

May be it’s the Draft Islamic Constitution, issued by al-Azhar University you’re talking about. But please read Umar Ibrahim Vadillo’s The Esoteric Deviation in Islam, and you surely will know where you are. Before then, here are some excerpts from the book.

Esotericism and constitutionalism

The constitutions have been an essential tool of esotericisation.
Constitutions challenged the validity of the religious law, and
provided the required political justification to the state. They
redefined freedom in terms of political docility. Their new morals,
like toleration, peace and security became subsidiary values to the
categorical imperatives of the state and the development of
capitalism. Constitutions became the essential tools of capitalism.

WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONALISM?

The constitution itself is just the result of the deliberation of a
group of people on paper, which itself can be altered or amended
from time to time as demanded. The constitution then rests on
acquiescence, whether it is established by referendum or by tacit
approval or even by force. The object of the constitution, was to
limit the arbitrary action of the government, to guarantee rights of
the governed, and to define the operation of the sovereign power.

The essence of constitutionalism is the affirmation that religion or
religions do not have a law, and even if they have one, man-made
laws are better than those originated by the prophet or prophets.
Constitutions emerged against a background of customary and
religious law and came to replace them. This is why a fundamental
hostility to religion or rather organised traditional religion is
implicit in constitutionalism. The whole process was summed up
by Figgis in the phrase: ‘Political Liberty is the residuary legatee of
ecclesiastical animosities.’ Constitutional supporters did of course
present the constitution as a defence of religion, in the name of
religious freedom. What it in fact protected was a religious
diversity that guaranteed absolute validity to none. But if religion
is not absolute it is not religion at all, but becomes at most a group
of feelings and inclinations of thought with no practical relevance
to the main aspects of political and economic life. And this is how
constitutions transformed religions under their rule. (p.170-71)

The Muslims and the new esoteric order

The world that resulted from the tragic elimination of the
Khalifate was a cluster of separated nations each with its own flag,
constitution and central bank. None of these realities are
acceptable in Islam. Every one of these constitutions, including the
so-called Islamic constitutions, is an assault on Islam. Every bank
open in a Muslim land is a reminder of the declaration of war that
Allah has issued in Qur’an against the usurers. In this state of
affairs a ‘reformed’ Islam has prevailed that has succeeded in
keeping the status quo for almost a hundred years.

Every Muslim knows that usury is forbidden. So, like the christian
reformers, some Muslim reformers with the help of well educated
kafirs changed the definition of usury. They abandoned the
traditional schools of jurisprudence, they invented a new school,
and, partly based on pragmatism, they invented the unthinkable:
the Islamic bank. Consequently, while criticising capitalism, they
embraced it with a religious endorsement. All the new laws and
methods of the ‘reformed Islam’ are in conflict with Islam. They
are a deviation which presents itself as fundamentalism, but the
only thing they are fundamentalist about is capitalism. They have
done what no kafir dared to do: to change Islamic Law in order to
accept the banks. This was possible because fundamentalism owes
more to freemasonry than to Islamic Law: it was Rashid Reda,
inspired by ‘Abduh who shaped reformist Islam, not Ibn
Taymiyya. Despite his oversight on fundamental aspects of the
Deen, Ibn Taymiyya was not a reformer, and he would never have
allowed an Islamic bank or a Saudi state.

In the meantime the world of capitalism continues to evolve towards
a world state. The preparations involve, as well as economic and
political issues, religious issues. The reformers, who had already
changed Islam to accept capitalism, seemed equally eager to change
Islam further in order to redefine it alongside the tolerance, human
rights and other principles of the new esoteric religion.

The ecumenical power of this esoteric religion has already
managed to bring together some irreconcilable sects of Islam.
Whether esotericist reformers or, to use an expression of Titus
Burckhardt, ‘those who do not look beyond the horizons of
exotericism’, there are many who have succumbed to the alluring
power of the UN. Where else will you find exoteric so-called
Salafis and esoteric so-called Sufis, who supposedly despise each
other, fraternally coming together? That brotherhood which
brings them together is not an Islamic Brotherhood but the
‘brotherhood of mankind’ advocated by freemasonry, the bahais
and the UN. When it comes to capitalism and the UN, they are in
conformity with each other. (p.63-4)

…Esotericism is present in our lives through the legal system. All
constitutions have an esoteric origin, including the Islamic
Constitution of Iran. If Iran followed Islamic Law they would not
need a constitution. Only the state, the banks and their paper
currency need a constitution. All the states that are part of the
United Nations have accepted the rule of esotericism. Accepting
the UN is an automatic renunciation of Islam. In effect, the
equality of all religions proclaimed by human rights meant the
practical abolition of all religions. We do not accept all the
religions because we know that Islam is the only religion
acceptable to Allah. Europe also tried for centuries to get rid of
christianity. But that liberating anti-christian spirit of the
Europeans which would have inevitably led them to Islam, as is
happening today, was deviated into esotericism, a false doctrine of
dualist foundations, that paralysed people with nihilistic values and
a will deprived of wisdom. (p.147)

…The second stage of esotericism was the utilitarian phase in which
Islamic Law was subject to a complete re-evaluation in terms of a
social, political or economic pragmatism. Real Sufism is banished
and a new Tasawwuf starts to emerge defined as esoteric Islam5
Madhhabs are gone and a new set of Islamic principles come into
action. Islamic principles allow the acceptance of assimilation to
kafir society: Islamic banks, Islamic states, Islamic stock exchanges,
Islamic constitutions, and so on. While affirming that Allah is the
most powerful, they admit that the kafir West (seen as evil) is in fact
more practical, and they eagerly succumb to imitating its kufr
which they had said they so much hated (e.g. the Islamic Republic
of Iran).

The final stage is the assimilation stage. Perennialism is their new
metaphysics. The brotherhood of mankind and the universality of
religions are widely accepted as Islamic doctrines. Tasawwuf is
esotericised and accepted6 and the Shari‘ah is esoterically softened
and made ready to become Islamic human rights. It follows an
implicit acceptance of the Declaration of Human Rights, and the
world state as the new kafir messiah. Progressively everything that
differentiated religions was defined as an exoteric domain (external,
accidental and peripheral) while the esoteric domain (internal,
essential and central) became that which brings them together.
Capitalism demands uniformity and freedom for usury.
Esotericisation provides both. Embracing all religions is their
deceiving technique. Usury is esoterically reinterpreted. It first
became reduced to ‘interest’ and then to a moral expression of ‘the
evil of trading’. Usury is no longer an existential practice, but a
moral principle. From dealing with the event we projected it into a
field of ethics and morality, in which principles and rights
dominate reality.

The utility of an act of pure worship has been devalued and
discredited according to a practical understanding of utility. This
behaviour resembles the behaviour of the agnostic. In this context it is
important to note that the people of all the religions today follow more
or less the same type of life. We all have banks, paper-money, pay
under a more and more homogeneous tax system, with identity cards
and a registration system. Muslims, christians and agnostics have to
live essentially in the same way. The difference is reduced to their
personal moral and sexual attitude, which creates a puritan/liberal
dialectic, and also to which day of the week they decide to go to the
temple. The morality is reduced to ‘I do what I can’. We propose a
change in the mentality produced by the utilitarian enquiry of ‘what
can we do?’ We can act if we just obey Allah.

Man’s actions cannot merely be valued by their utility. It would
mean the triumph of technique over obedience to Allah. It would
mean that the imperatives of the banking system are above those
of obedience to Allah. This is what the deviated say: “Allah is the
most powerful, but the bankers are more practical. We should
follow the sunna of the bankers.” This is the irony of their dualism.
They call the banks ‘shaytans’, and yet they hurry to islamise them
(Islamic banks). It shows the helplessness of their vision and makes
obvious their surrender. The banks are institutions forbidden by
Allah and to accept them or try to incorporate them into our
worship is to worship other-than-Allah. This is commonly referred
to as being practical. They say “we are practical”, but they are only
fooling themselves. This way of saying they are practical is the
evidence of their helplessness which results in an inability to act
according to Islam. One of the most common ideas in esoteric
thinking is that ‘we cannot obey’ because there are other forces that
do not allow us to act. Normally these forces are referred to as
shaytan. So the shaytans — they say — do not allow them to act.
The shaytans are all their political enemies. But these people do not
realise that the only obstacle they have is themselves. The proof is
that when they are finally given an opportunity to act they copy the
shaytans whom they hate: Islamic banks. They think that what is
halal is not possible, and this understanding blinds them. (p.17-19)